Sections

Median income up, but StatsCan cautious about new data

A Senate committee is calling on the government to make sweeping changes to anti-money laundering legislation — rather than continue an 'incremental legislative and regulatory changes' approach that hasn’t kept up with changing technologies employed by criminals. Photo: Stephen Hilger/Bloomberg News/Files

OTTAWA — Many Canadians appear to have come through the recession making a lot more money — at least statistically — and are benefiting increasingly from higher education and booming regional economies.

The most recent snapshot of the country, released Wednesday, reflects the shifting fortunes of industries during and after the global downturn, highlighting the decline of the manufacturing sector and the growing dependence on natural resources.

According to Statistics Canada’s 2011 National Household Survey, a voluntary sampling of the population that replaced the mandatory long-form census, the median income of Canadians working full-time, year-round was $47,868 in 2010.

That’s up from $41,401 in the 2005 census — based on the average value of the dollar that year.

“That rings about true,” said Douglas Porter, chief economist at BMO Capital Markets. “That’s an annualized growth rate of about 2.7 per cent per year — a little bit better than inflation. That sounds about right over a five-year period.”

But when looking at all Canadians over the age of 15, who earned some form of income, the survey found the median income shrinks to $29,900.

Brian Murphy, special adviser with Statistics Canada’s income division, cautioned not to read too much into the large jump in income from 2005.

“It’s a brand new survey,” he said. “I’d be looking for these long-term trends in other data sources. It’s really important for income statistics to hold the methodology constant.”

He added: “The economy is moving, it’s shifting. So we have to hold that filter and lens constant. And methodology is part of that filter — and that changed. ”

Canadians in the top 10 per cent of earners in 2010 netted a median income of $102,313, while the top five per cent had a median income of $131,541 and the top one per cent earned a median income of $264,943.

To find the top Canadian full-time earners overall, look to the North.

All three territories had median annual incomes above $60,000. Nunavut had the highest with $77,130, followed by the Northwest Territories at $73,667 and the Yukon at $60,124.

The 2011 survey, based on data collected in 2010 by Statistics Canada, showed the biggest wage earners by province were in resource-heavy Alberta, where the median salary of full-time employees was $55,507.

Ontario was next with $50,116, while British Columbians earned $49,143, those in Saskatchewan brought in $46,304 and Newfoundland and Labrador workers earned $45,823.

Not surprisingly, the economies of both Saskatchewan and Newfoundland — as in Alberta — have been boosted by the resources sector.

Meanwhile, full-time incomes in other provinces were below $44,000.

Calgary was the city with the highest full-time incomes, at $57,967. In the Ottawa-Gatineau region, incomes averaged $57,551, followed by Edmonton at $56,388 and Regina at $52, 294. Toronto and Vancouver averaged $50,787 and $50,016, respectively.

The Statistics Canada data also showed the biggest income earners tended to be highly educated, with 67.1 per cent of the top one per cent of full-time workers having received a university degree. By occupation, many of those in the top one per cent had jobs in management, health, business, finance and administration and law.

“On the university education front, I think it’s been shown fairly clearly lately that it helps but it’s no guarantee of higher income. And it matters critically exactly what you get that degree in and what you do with it afterwards,” Mr. Porter said. “It’s helpful but I don’t think it’s sufficient.”

Importantly, the voluntary nature of the NHS leaves it subject to data gaps in certain geographic areas and populations. The survey was sent to roughly 30 per cent of Canadian households and drew a response rate of 68.6 per cent, versus the 2006 census sent to about 20 per cent of households with a response rate of 93.5 per cent.

It has been criticized for being a less-accurate reading of the country and, as a result, less useful by governments and businesses for tracking the resource needs of a changing population and employment base.

“Of course, the federal government’s baffling decision to eliminate the long-form census means that the National Household Survey is not directly comparable to the census,” said United Steelworkers economist Erin Weir.

“Despite methodological differences, that number will inevitably be compared to $47,868, the median full-time, full-year employment income for 2010,” he said.

“Most of the apparent improvement simply reflects inflation. . . . To make matters worse, a smaller proportion of Canada’s working-age population now has full-time, full-year employment. An earlier National Household Survey release this summer confirmed that the employment rate fell from 62.6 per cent to 60.9 per cent between 2006 and 2011.”

The voluntary nature of the NHS, which the Harper government said was introduced due to privacy concerns, leaves gaps in the data from groups that tend not to respond to voluntary surveys, including aboriginals, new immigrants and low-income families.

While experts believe the data should provide a fairly accurate broad picture of Canada, statisticians and economists warn the smaller the group surveyed, the less reliable the information. For the May 2011 survey, about 4.5 million households received a questionnaire.

Despite a strong recovery from the 2008-09 recession, Canada’s economy has been slowing, hampered by the absence of sustained growth elsewhere — especially in the United States, our biggest trading partner.